Tollef Fog Heen
tfheen at err.no
Fri Mar 30 22:57:07 PDT 2012
]] Paul Bender
> On 3/30/2012 9:49 PM, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
> > ]] Paul Bender
> >> Making pkg-config dependent on anything will ensure that pkg-config is
> >> dropped over time. The inane idea that it is ok to make pkg-config
> >> depend on a package that uses pkg-config is sure to guarantee that
> >> distributions will not update pkg-config. I maintain a Linux
> >> distribution and I have no plans to upgrade pkg-config because of the
> >> the inane decision to create this dependency. Because of this
> >> decision, I expect that within five years pkg-config will no longer
> >> exist. Nobody maintaining a distribution wants this circular
> >> dependency. Therefore, we will end up dropping pkg-config.
> > Such a circular dependency is quite common in lower parts of the
> > toolchain, so people bootstrapping distributions have to deal with this
> > anyway. For people not maintaining toolchains, it's not a problem.
> It is not "quite common". I maintain a toolchain, so I know. The only
> circular dependency is between gcc and glibc. Based on your statement
> you must not maintain a toolchain.
There are quite a few more packages that need themselves to build, such
as ghc or sbcl. http://wiki.debian.org/CircularBuildDependencies talks
about 20 of them.
> I will continue to use version 0.25, as all newer versions have
> decided to make it unnecessary difficult. If it continues, I have no
> doubt either pkg-config will fork or pkg-config will die.
You're of course free to use an older version.
Tollef Fog Heen
UNIX is user friendly, it's just picky about who its friends are
More information about the pkg-config